Exploring the Aetiology of Grade Moderation: Is there a place for prophylaxis?

Abstract

Grade moderation is a deliberate exercise conducted in most institutions and at various levels of the student evaluation process that seeks to facilitate quality assurance of the educational program at large. The author takes a closer look at the practice of grade moderation that operates specifically at the modular or program level where the aim is to differentiate student abilities by banding them into different performance levels, in order to conform to an expected, consistent and equitable standard. This approach is more commonly known as curve fitting, by conforming to an expected reference norm for performance distribution in a relatively large population. The purpose of this paper is to critically consider the premise for such moderation, the objectives and the social repercussions that accompany its implementation as an unintended outcome. Central to the discussion are the notions that: (1) the aetiologies which necessitate grade moderation as a response to achieve the reference norm, are largely preventable in nature; (2) the assessor contributes fundamentally to the aetiologies, and therefore should be the targeted party for such prevention. Ultimately, the author advocates the personal responsibility of the assessor in monitoring student performance formatively, and the need to exercise careful considerations in the crafting and grading of assessments. This will help to minimise the use of institutional grade moderation as a necessary evil, which should otherwise be preserved only as a contingency measure when prophylaxis fails.